1. People create cool, complex stuff that seems unlikely to come about by chance2. People are intelligent3. People have been around for 6k - 200k years.4. Life and the Universe is 6k or a teeny bit longer years old> Therefore intelligence created it all, obviously.

Example 2

1. A movement is started by Christian reconstructionists2. They fund it3. They create a strategic Wedge document towards the reversal of secularism via acceptance of faith (Christian). 4. They get caught copy and pasting from a creationist book5. A court finds them to be "not science"6. They try to redefine science7. They get upset with science, yet do none of their own

> They are a scientific movement.

Now, your turn

1. There's a blog2. It has numerous bible references, but no defensible information calculations.3. It gets mad at Atheists4. and Muslims5. and Gays6. and Women7. It's just banned it's most scientifically literate commentator for asking questions8. and followed up with a post "Who was Adam and when did he live? Twelve theses and a caveat"

1. There's a blog2. It has numerous bible references, but no defensible information calculations.3. It gets mad at Atheists4. and Muslims5. and Gays6. and Women7. It's just banned it's most scientifically literate commentator for asking questions8. and followed up with a post "Who was Adam and when did he live? Twelve theses and a caveat"

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture. The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture. †The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

That's one of the things that have always bothered me about ID. Without a word about the process of implementation, ID is only a 'catchphrase'.

The possibility of anyone designer, divine or not, being capable of designing probably billions of species must lie far beyond Dembski's UPB. Implementation would take even a horde of gods more time than yet elapsed in the history of planet Earth.

What also remains to be resolved is the mystery of the missing evidence.

I don't think they can forever maintain a straight face propagating ID without being able to point at hard evidence.

I think they made a mistake not founding the theory of ID on magic. That's what the YEC's believe anyway, isn't it?

1. †There have been many variants of Dembski's CSI, which purports to detect design.2. †Gordon is currently pushing his own version: FIASCO.3. †It sounds all sciency: "specified", "information", "bits"... It doesn't sound at all like "that property of things which look designed to Gordon, which makes them look designed to Gordon". Not in the slightest.4. †It has never been used in a peer-reviewed publication.5. †It has never been used anywhere else, except a couple of religious blogs.6. †Gordon has asserted that FIASCO can reliably detect design, but neither he nor anyone else has presented evidence that this is the case.7. †FIASCO has never been calculated for an organism.8. †FIASCO has never been calculated for any object known to have been designed.9. †FIASCO has never been calculated for anything else.

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture. †The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

No doubt IDists do at times use the term "design" when they are talking about manufacture. But Behe and Dembski actually define design to be purposefulness.

Michael Behe defines ďdesignĒ as ďthe purposeful arrangement of parts.Ē He says that he has detected such design in, for example, the bacterial flagellum. But he does not claim to be one of the people who discovered the arrangement of parts in the flagellum; he learned about that from scientists working in labs. Also note that he does not claim to have discovered the purposes the Designer has assigned to the flagellum or to any of its parts. So this ďdesignĒ that Behe says that has detected is †a free-floating purposefulness. (Dembski calls it the ďcomplement of regularity and chance.Ē)

As you say, they are not using the term "design" the way it is used by people involved in either design or production. For engineers, in particular, purposes and intents are more closely related to the concept of requirements, not design. The IDist use of the term "design" is alien to engineers. I gather that they use the term the way it is often used in philosophy and theology.

In engineering, a design is an arrangement (a pattern) of parts. †The design process is the process of coming up with an arrangement of parts. When we engineers read a design specification or attend a design review for a system, we expect to learn about what its parts will be, how they will be arranged, and how they will interact to fulfill the systemís purposes (its requirements).

--------------Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

...As you say, they are not using the term "design" the way it is used by people involved in either design or production. ...

I think this is (another) very important point.It is hardly the only place that the ID community abuses the language, and relies on a certain confusion of terminology.Those of us involved in design and production, in any field, need to point this out and emphasize, repeatedly, that the DI and its various members/supporters/hangers-on are talking through their hats when they use the term 'design'.They don't mean by it what 'the man on the street' means, and still less what those who design and manufacture for a living mean by it.

Some point about evolution is still debated by actual scientists: THEORY IN CRISIS.

Some point about evolution is pretty much agreed upon by actual scientists: DARWINIST CONSPIRACY.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Properly referring to ID (and the cdesignproponetists) as Creationism is STEREOTYPING. † :p

ID is not religious, but if you object to having it taught in taxpayer-funded schools, or imposed on you in your workplace, that's religious discrimination.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Creationists: Religious people. Nothing to do with the totally secular non-religious subject of Intelligent Design, which is religion-free. No-one could possibly think ID has anything to do with religion - it's totally objective design detection and not religious at all. Did we mention it's nothing to do with religion?

Design proponents: Advocates of the totally sciency scientific theory of science which is Intelligent Design science. We're scientists doing science in buildings which say "Science" on the door. We've got labcoats and everything.

Cdesign proponentsists: I don't know what you're talking about. That doesn't make any sense and... OH WOW! LOOK AT THAT OVER THERE!

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Peloza is a biology teacher in a public high school, and is employed by the Capistrano Unified School District. He is being forced by the defendants (the school district, its trustees and individual teachers and others) to proselytize his students to a belief in "evolutionism" "under the guise of [its being] a valid scientific theory." Evolutionism is an historical, philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory. Evolutionism is one of "two world views on the subject of the origins of life and of the universe." The other is "creationism" which also is a "religious belief system." "The belief system of evolutionism is based on the assumption that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator involved in the process. The world view and belief system of creationism is based on the assumption that a Creator created all life and the entire universe." Peloza does not wish "to promote either philosophy or belief system in teaching his biology class." "The general acceptance of ... evolutionism in academic circles does not qualify it or validate it as a scientific theory." Peloza believes that the defendants seek to dismiss him due to his refusal to teach evolutionism. His first amendment rights have been abridged by interference with his right "to teach his students to differentiate between a philosophical, religious belief system on the one hand and a true scientific theory on the other."

Peloza lost.

Quote

V. CONCLUSION

The district court correctly dismissed Peloza's section 1983 claim based on allegations of a violation of his constitutional rights under the Establishment Clause and his rights to free speech and due process. He failed to allege sufficient facts to state a violation of these rights. The district court also correctly dismissed Peloza's claim under 42 U.S.C. ß 1985(3), because he failed to allege facts sufficient to state a violation of those rights; assuming, without deciding, that they fall within the protection of section 1985(3).

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint. We reverse the district court's award of attorney fees to the defendants.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

The "reversed in part" refers to the matter of attorney fees, where the lower court had treated Peloza's suit as a frivolous lawsuit and ordered him to pay defendants' attorney fees.